In a recent poll of nearly 2,000 professionals and hobbyists recording and mixing audio, only 1 in 5 said they bothered recording and mixing above 44.1kHz/48kHz.
Two groups were polled, those who said they were professionals and those who said they recorded and mixed as a hobby, in both cases the majority opted to record at either 44.1kHz or 48kHz.
Here are the breakdowns by group.
All Answers
I mainly record at the following sample rate
Professionals Who Answered
I mainly record at the following sample rate
Hobbyists Who Answered
I mainly record at the following sample rate
Why Do Few Care About Higher Sample Rates?
Both those using higher sample rates in post and music production swear blind that there is a sonic advantage using higher sample rates, particularly when using time stretching algorithms or for those wanting improved top end, but it seems the arguments are largely falling on deaf ears. It seems despite the endless debates online about higher sample rates and the gear available at low cost offering users higher sample rates, that few seem to care about using the higher sample rates available.
The argument that higher sample rates use more hard drive space is largely redundant as hard drives are now very cheap and so storage is not an issue.
Some would argue that as sample rate increases then track count goes down, but this issue is largely isolated to Pro Tools users with voice count concerns, this poll was aimed at all DAW users, many of whom don’t even realise that track count may be affected by sample rate, as in most cases it isn’t.
Some may argue it puts more load in the computer, which is does, and therefore reduces the amount on can do in the same session, but a counter argument is that is reduces latency, which for many is the holy grail, so why don’t users take advantage of higher sample rates for this reason alone?
Some plug-ins only work at lower sample rates, or reduce the amount of DSP available but a cursory glance at plug-in specifications by some of the largest and most used plugin brands shows that most will work at least at 96kHz, but available DSP will reduce.
Or is it as simple as that because of the history around CDs being 44.1kHz and video workflows being centred around 48kHz that we have effectively settled at industry standard sample rates?
There’s a comprehensive report on the Grammy website “RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HI-RESOLUTION MUSIC PRODUCTION” by the Producers and Engineers Wing of the Recording Academy, that may sway you thinking on this matter.
Why Do You Think So Few Bother Using Higher Audio Sample Rates?
We’ve had a lot of discussion about this subject since seeing the results, it seems that the audio industry isn’t doing what the video industry is and embracing higher resolutions. The argument some make in audio is that higher resolutions don’t matter because most music is consumed as MP3s on earbuds. However, were the video industry to take the same attitude then they would ditch 4K and shoot at lower resolutions, on the contrary even the semi-pro videographer will try and shoot at the highest possible resolution. Furthermore it’s likely that the content will be highly compressed for online or streaming and further compressed as a downstream when delivered by streaming, satellite and cable services. That’s why you’ll see blocking of the picture, particularly in large areas of darker colours when watching, even on a 4K TV.
So why do you use lower audio sample rates? We’d be interested to have a really big community discussion about this and find out why few of those recording and mixing audio embrace the sample rates available to them.